Thursday, January 31, 2008

The nerdosphere is abuzzaboutArc, Paul Graham's long-awaited new dialect of Lisp, so I figured I might as well pile on. For the benefit of those of you who read this blog for its political content, beware: this is going to be a seriously geeky post. You have been warned.

Some quick background: I am as big a fan of Lisp as you could ever hope to find. I've been using Lisp since 1979 (my first Lisp was P-Lisp on an Apple ][ ) and I used it almost exclusively for over twenty years until I lost my faith and switched, reluctantly, to Python (and I was not alone). Recently I have taken up Lisp again since the release of Clozure Common Lisp. I am proud of the fact that my login on Reddit, YC News and Arclanguage.org is Lisper.

Furthermore, I am a huge Paul Graham fan. I think his essays are brilliant. I think Y Combinator is brilliant (to the point where I'm seriously considering moving from LA to the Silicon Valley just so I can go hang out there). Paul is the kind of guy I wish I could be but can't.

I think all the enthusiasm and buzz about Arc is wonderful, but I am concerned what will happen if people start to think that there's no there there. If Arc doesn't save Lisp it's hard to imagine what would. And unfortunately, I think Arc has some quite serious problems.

The biggest problem with Arc is that it is at the moment not much more than a (very) thin layer on top of Scheme. Now, that would be OK if it were the right thin layer, but I don't think it is. Arc's design path is well-trod, and the pitfalls that lie upon it are mostly well known.

For example, Arc is 1) a Lisp-1 that 2) uses unhygienic macros and 3) does not have a module system. This is bound to lead to problems when programs get big, and not because people forget to put gensyms (which Arc dubs "uniqs") in the right place (although I predict that will be a problem too). The problem is that in a Lisp-1, local variable bindings can shadow global function names, and so if you use a macro M that references a global function F in a context where F is shadowed then M will fail. If you're lucky you'll get an error. If you're not lucky your program will just do some random weird thing. Hygienic macros were not invented just because some intellectuals in an ivory tower wanted to engage in some mathematical masturbation. This is a real problem, and the larger your code base the more real it becomes.

I cite this problem first because macros are, according to Paul Graham, the raison d'etre for Lisp. Macros are the reason for putting up with all those irritating parentheses. And macros in Arc are broken.

Unfortunately, it gets worse.

Arc is supposed to be a language for "exploratory programming" so it's supposed to save you from premature commitments. From the Arc tutorial:

Lists are useful in exploratory programming because they're so flexible. You don't have to commit in advance to exactly what a list represents. For example, you can use a list of two numbers to represent a point on a plane. Some would think it more proper to define a point object with two fields, x and y. But if you use lists to represent points, then when you expand your program to deal with n dimensions, all you have to do is make the new code default to zero for missing coordinates, and any remaining planar code will continue to work.

There are a number of problems with this. First, the kind of flexibility that Paul describes here is not unique to lists. You could accomplish the exact same thing with, for example, a Python object with named slots (which is just a thin wrapper for an abstract associative map -- note that I did not say hash table here. More on this later.) You could have 2-D points with X and Y slots, and 3-D points with X, Y and Z slots. You could even do the 2-D points-return-zero-for-their-nonexistent-Z-slot trick by redefining the __getattr__ method for the 2D point class. Python objects are every bit as flexible as lists except that it's a lot easier to figure out that a <2-D point instance> is a two-dimensional point than a list with two elements. (You can't even assume that a 2-D point will be a list of two numbers, because Paul goes on to suggest:

Or if you decide to expand in another direction and allow partially evaluated points, you can start using symbols representing variables as components of points, and once again, all the existing code will continue to work.

"All of your existing code will continue to work" only if your existing code isn't built with the tacit assumption that the coordinates of a point are numbers. If you've tried to do math on those coordinates then you're out of luck.

Which brings me to my next point...

Lisp lists are quite flexible, but they are not infinitely malleable. They are a "leaky abstraction." The fact that Lisp lists are linked lists (and not, for example, vectors, as Python lists are) is famously exposed by the fact that CDR is a primitive (and non-consing) operation. Make no mistake, linked lists are monstrously useful, but there are some things for which they are not well suited. In particular, Nth is an O(n) operation on linked lists, which means that if you want to do anything that involves random access to the elements of a list then your code will be slow. Paul recognizes this, and provides hash tables as a primitive data structure in Arc (the lack of which has been a notable shortfall of Scheme). But then he backpedals and advocates association lists as well:

This is called an association list, or alist for short. I once thought alists were just a hack, but there are many things you can do with them that you can't do with hash tables, including sort them, build them up incrementally in recursive functions, have several that share the same tail, and preserve old values.

First, hash tables can be sorted, at least in the sense that associated lists can be sorted. Just get a list of the keys and sort them. Or create a sorted-hash-table that maintains an adjunct sorted list of keys. This is not rocket science. But that is not the problem.

The problem is that the functions for accessing association lists are different from those used to access hash tables. That means that if you write code using one you cannot pass in the other, which completely undermines the whole idea of using Arc as an exploratory language. Arc forces you into a premature optimization here.

The Right Thing if you want to support exploratory programming (which to me means not force programmers to make premature commitments and optimizations) is to provide an abstract associative map whose underlying implementation can be changed. To make this work you have to commit to a protocol for associative maps that an implementation must adhere to. The trouble is that designing such a protocol is not such an easy thing to do. It involves compromises. For example, what should the implementation do if an attempt is made to dereference a non-existent key? Throw an exception? Return some unique canonical value? Return a user-supplied default? Each possibility has advantages and disadvantages. The heavy lifting in language design is making these kinds of choices despite the fact that there is no One Right Answer (or even if there is, that it may not be readily apparent).

Now, as I said, I am mindful of the fact that this is just a first draft. But some Big Decisions do seem to have been made. In particular, it seems a safe bet that Arc will not have an OO layer, which means no generic functions, no abstract data types, and hence no way to build reliable protocols of the sort that would be needed to eliminate the kinds of forced premature optimizations that Arc currently embraces. It also seems a safe bet that it will remain a Lisp-1 without hygienic macros (because Paul seems to regard both hygiene and multiple name spaces as Horrible Hacks). Whether it gets a module system remains to be seen, but it seems doubtful. If you think designing a protocol for abstract associative maps is hard, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

So there it is. Paul, if you're reading this, I'm sorry to harsh on your baby. I really hope Arc succeeds. But I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

A mother whose two teenage daughters were placed in an orphanage when she fell ill during a post-Christmas shopping trip to New York has been told she is under investigation because her children were taken into care.

Yvonne Bray, took her daughters Gemma, 15, and Katie, 13, to New York shortly after Christmas for a shopping trip but was taken into hospital when she fell ill with pneumonia during their visit.

The girls were then told they could not wait at the hospital and as minors would have to be taken into care.

Social workers took them to a municipal orphanage in downtown Manhattan, where they were separated, strip-searched and questioned before being kept under lock and key for the next 30 hours.

The two sisters were made to shower in front of security staff and told to fill out a two-page form with questions including: "Have you ever been the victim of rape?" and "Do you have homicidal tendencies?"

One question asked "are you in a street gang?" to which Gemma replied: "I'm a member of Appledore library."

Their clothes, money and belongings were taken and they were issued with regulation white T-shirt and jeans. Katie said: "It was like being in a little cage. I tried to go to sleep, but every time I opened my eyes, someone was looking right at me."

Eventually Bray discharged herself, and - still dressed in hospital pyjamas - tracked down the girls.

She said: "It is absolutely horrendous that two young girls were put through an ordeal like that. They were made to answer traumatic questions about things they don't really understand and spend over 24 hours under surveillance."

Since returning home, Bray has received a letter from the US Administration for Children and Families, notifying her that, because the children were admitted to the orphanage, she is now "under investigation."

I've copied the entire article in blatant disregard of fair-use doctrine because this is one story that really ought not be lost to a stale link.

...a law firm representing Ford contacted [the Black Mustang Club] saying that our calendar pics (and our club's event logos - anything with one of our cars in it) infringes on Ford's trademarks which include the use of images of THEIR vehicles. Also, Ford claims that all the images, logos and designs OUR graphics team made for the BMC events using Danni are theirs as well.

<irony>Seems like an effective business strategy to me. Sure makes me want to run right out and buy a Mustang.</irony>

John McCain was right. Some of those jobs aren't coming back to Detroit.

"In Sony's vision of the future, any two consumer devices will be able to exchange data wirelessly with one another simply by holding them close together. The system is designed for maximum ease of use, which means limited options for controlling the transfers; devices will transfer their contents automatically to another device within range."

Friday, January 11, 2008

Of course, it's really the Countrywide board of directors that is to blame here. I could have bankrupted Countrywide just as well as Mozilo did (if not better), and I would have happily done it for a mere $50 million.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

John Deady, the co-chair of New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy [Giuliani], is standing by the comments he made in the controversial interview with The Guardian we posted on below, in which he said that "the Muslims" need to be chased "back to their caves."

Here's the scary bit:

When I asked Deady to elaborate on his suggestion that we need to "get rid" of Muslims, Deady said:

"When I say get rid of them, I wasn't necessarily referring to genocide....

Wasn't necessarily referring to genocide? So he might have been referring to genocide?

Even the German Nazis (it's a sad commentary on the state of the world that I need to qualify the term now) were more discrete about their plans to murder all the Jews than this bozo.

Of course, the really scary thing is not John Deady, it's that he can say things like this and not get run out of town on a rail. Does no one remember that we fought a war not too long ago against people like this?